Yes. And further indication, IMO, that antisemitism, and anti Israeli bigotry, are growing problems among young people (I’m assuming most redditors are young-ish).
I’m not sure what exactly to do about it broadly speaking. But it’s a real and worrisome thing, and may require different sorts of strategies than what was used to combat the “old” flavors of bigotry (like traditional American white supremacism).
In the category of two wrongs not making a right, you appear to have jumped to the conclusion that I interpreted iiandyiiii’s analogy of insects to jews. I did not. The thought never even occurred to me because I don’t believe him to be an anti-semite.
The claim he made that rape of prisoners at the hands of the IDF is possibly an endemic problem (not just one or two reported incidents) is baseless, and one he admits to not having direct evidence for. He’s just putting it out there as a possible ‘infestation’. I consider that to be an unwarranted exaggeration.
My apologies for misunderstanding you, then. I think your concern about the analogy is overblown, and his concern that there are more incidents that aren’t being fully discussed by the IDF is warranted, but I did not understand your specific objection.
I agree that this is not only the best path forward, it is the only path forward. That said, once it happens, it will almost certainly lead to the leaders of the newly formed Palestinian state deciding once more that “From Water to Water, Palestine will be Arab” and declaring war on Israel. And that war won’t go well for them, and once again Israel will be accused of every war crime under the sun.
They have been offered their own state many, many times over the years and they have rejected the offer every time. If they are simply told, we’re doing the deal now whether you like it or not, there is no reason to believe that they will accept this time.
That said, it is still by far the best option going forward. Unlike any other alternative, it is the only option that can eventually end in two states and an end to the conflict.
But, to circle back around to the subject of this thread… Putting all of the blame for this conflict continuing on Israel, when Israel is the side that has offered peace time and again, crosses the line for sure.
I fully support continued investigations by journalists and Israel’s legal system. Nothing should be done to prevent that. And if evidence of wide spread abuse is uncovered, then on their heads be it. Until then, I want to avoid jumping to conclusions and feeding the general climate of moral panic.
This is true in theory, but in practice, there are very few people (outside of western far left circles, maybe) who hate Israelis without the underlying reason being anti-semitism.
There’s a reason why Palestinians tend to call us “Yahud”, not “Israeli”.
Now who’s comparing people to insects? 
I’ve seen more than a few American Jews describe Israelis this way, and even make comments of the sort that would have been directed at Jews in general a century ago (e.g. “I’d never do business with them!”).
Israel’s legal system utterly failed in this incident, which was videotaped. Why should we trust them to find and prosecute (potential) other incidents that may not have been videotaped?
I’m seeing a very disturbing (though still very small) trend in left-wing online spaces of arguing “Antisemitism is good actually! Because Zionism is bad, and most Jews are Zionists, so most Jews are bad. If a Jew has good moral character, they will completely renounce their Jewish identity to protest the evils of Zionism, and therefore antisemitism will only harm bad people.” Often these people will fully meet Ben-Gvir at the end of the horseshoe and claim that being a genocidal racist is actually the logical extension of the Jewish religion.
This is obviously antisemitic, but it is ironically the mirror image of many Jews who also argue that Zionism is fundamental to Jewish identity and that if you aren’t going to be a Zionist, you might as well just stop calling yourself a Jew at all.
It’s not that difficult.
Extreme one-sided condemnation of Israel, when accompanied by classic anti-Semitic tropes and/or endorsement of slogans that call for the nation’s destruction (such as "from the river to the sea) represent anti-Semitic bigotry.
Bigots can be remarkably stubborn about acknowledging their hatred. Long before the Gaza war became a major issue, we had a poster on the Dope arguing that a cartoon in The Independent showing a naked Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian baby was not anti-Semitic (forget that blood libel silliness, you’re just trying to stifle honest dissent 
) - and a lot of supposed progressives agreed (the cartoon won an award).
Happily (?) the tradition continues.
But just keep repeating “you can’t criticize Israel without being called anti-Semitic”. That line provides automatic immunity from being revealed as a bigot, no matter what hatred one indulges in.
I think it’s certainly possible to hate Zionism, or to hate the State of Israel, without being antisemitic. When you’re making blanket statements about “hating Israelis”, I think that’s way over the red line.
It reminds me of the people complaining about being cancelled from the biggest stages in the world, like Dave Chappelle or Joe Rogan. What do you mean, you can’t criticize Israel? It’s quite literally the most criticized country in the world.
Would you say that it’s possible to hate Palestine or the concept of Palestinian self determination without being racist and/or Islamophobic?
It’s also behavior the Israeli government could change, if it so chose. I mean, their whole gig is enabled by the government, and they could pass laws to require them to participate just like any other Israeli citizen. Whether or not that’s a viable thing for politicians to do, I don’t know.
All this stuff gets really murky and hairy when you start talking about questions of culture vs. people, or questions of religion vs. people. Questions of culture shouldn’t be off limits, but they do skate really close to questions about the people of those cultures, especially if there’s any condemnation or shade involved.
But I don’t think that condemnation or criticism of a nation’s government equates to criticism or condemnation of the people of that nation, even when it’s a Western style democracy.
I also am NOT a fan of the popular pressure to pick sides and be all-in on this particular issue (Israel/Palestine). I don’t feel that it’s nearly as black and white as some claim, and being pressured to choose just kind of irritates me into refusing to choose that much more.
You can’t hate the State of Palestine, because it doesn’t actually exist. If you hate the concept that such a State should ever exist, or hate the idea that people should identify as Palestinians at all, I would say that’s bigoted (I won’t say racist, because nobody thinks Palestinians are a distinct racial group). But if someone says “The Palestinians have broken so many peace agreements that the time it will take them to prove they can be trusted with a State far exceeds my lifetime”, I don’t think that’s necessarily bigoted.
Ok, so how is that not exactly akin to hating the concept of Zionism?
I know that you are Jewish and not a Zionist, which is fine, in the same way that there are Palestinians who have moved to other countries and are perfectly happy building their lives there and have no interest in the national project of Palestine, which is also fine for them. But the fact that people like that, or like you, exist does not invalidate the Jews and Palestinians who do believe in self determination.
I don’t think that’s akin to hating Zionism. It would be more akin to Achad Haam’s position. I don’t think Achad Haam was antisemitic when he said that Jewish culture was too entranced in exile to successfully complete the Zionist project in his lifetime and that the focus of the Jewish people should be on revitalizing their culture to prepare for eventual nationhood. I think he was wrong, but I don’t think he was antisemitic.
Likewise, if you opposed the founding of Israel in the 1940s because you thought it was geopolitically unfeasable, that’s not necessarily anti-Semitic, but it’s also not “hating Zionism”.
I do think that wanting to destroy Israel now cannot be viewed as anything but antisemitic.
What if one feels, like (apparently) many Zionists do, that Zionism requires settler colonialism, and oppression and brutality towards Palestinian civilians? That may not be your Zionism, but it is Smotrich’s. One can hate Smotrich’s Zionism without being antisemitic.
The Haredi situation is super complicated. Their “culture” as it exists today – where the expectation is that adult men will spend their entire lives as full-time Torah scholars – is completely a product of the Zionist State they despise. Hasidic culture had always held that to be the theoretical ideal, but never before in Jewish history have they lived somewhere where the government would subsidize this lifestyle, so the vast majority of them historically had to have real jobs. They do have a long history of avoiding military service wherever they have lived, though.
So I feel quite comfortable arguing that these people are not actually representative of Jewish religious and cultural traditions, but I must admit it makes me mildly uncomfortable when non-Jews point out how generally ridiculous they are. LIke I said, it’s complicated.
Though they get by well enough on government subsidies in Kiryas Joel and Borough Park…